First, has the information been deemed illegal to view or say? There are laws protecting us from having, say, blockbuster release information about what video's we watch, why should a website need to release information about who's reading their content? If the information's "illegal" then it should be removed, but it hardly seems right that they have the right to request who's been reading what and who's been saying what... at least on a grand scale... If there's an "illegal" post, then it should be removed and perhaps the IP of the actual poster can be handed over, but not the IP's of everyone that actually read the information as well...
I don't think there's a processor fast enough to handle video decoding via Java quite yet. It's a really strenuous task, one that every ounce of processor speed can be taken up.
Past that... What about Quicktime? The players free. The streaming server is free. The server is opensource, so it runs or can run on just about any plaform available. The player is available for Windows and Mac OS, the two dominant client OSes....
no offense but how did that comment possibly merit "interesting?"
32 bits equals roughly 4 billion. each bit past that doubles the quantity. so, a limit of 128 bits is not even feasibly reachable in many millenia to come.
get with it already... they're going after not a single person for downloading anything that they own. They're only going after people who makes stuff available to others which they have no right to distribute...
Small difference to you, big difference so far as the laws concerened. Download all you want, just don't allow any of your files to be uploaded... Of course that undermines napster completely, but that's where the problem lies in the eyes of the law.
Good point, but we still don't need dozens of distro's just because people have different installation preferences... just more flexible intallers, really.
They're all basically the same and all the codes available, there's no real reason for all the redundany's in distros. Everyone should just suck it up and work collaberatively rather than competitively and attack the target(s) (servers and eventually desktops) together in one unified strike rather than 200 little skirmish's
Re:John C. Dvorak... he lost it
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 1
I loved pointcast! So did my boss and everyone else at work at the time - what was it? 1997 or so? maybe 98?... anyways, we killed our network traffic and had to abandon it. Too bad, these days with cable modems and stuff, it'd be a great product for the home office... (i doubt corporates will ever let that beast near their networks again. at least not until 1000Base-T is the norm)
Hmmmmm... maybe you're onto something? If we all (say, 100 million US citizens, just for the sake of math) ditch the networks and go with Tivo, they'ed stand to earn:
$120,000,000,000 a year... I don't think the entire entertainment industry brings (music, TV, film, sports) in that much per year, let alone TV by itself.
Somehow the math doesn't work that they can sell a little box with a hard drive in it, and charge $10 a month for the priveldge of it's use... looking at the size of their potential audience, etc... they need to completely forget the monthly fees, and just figure on a continuous upgrade cycle in sync with whatever one of those laws permits hard drive capacity to quintuple year after year....
n top of that, both UltimateTV and TiVo charge customers $10 a month to use the device. None of that money goes to the networks or programmers whose material is being re-recorded and saved to the hard disk.
I wonder if Panasonic (maker of my VCR) and the makers of my no-name VCR tapes send cheques to NBC and FOX?
Well do Panasonic et al charge you a monthly recurring fee for the use of their devices which you've purchased off a store's shelf? No. Why should TIVO etc be any different in that regard? Pure greed... worse than any of the networks, being that they've never charged me a single dime to watch a show...
You're missing something, though. Right now, the P4's are priced at levels where people do actually look at the performance of the chip (power users & gamers, mostly). Dropping the price put's it in line for joe consumer, and joe consumer doens't look at benchmarks, so much as he looks at price. So long as a P4 system is within a couple hundred dollars of an Athlon system, most will end up with P4's, simply because they know the name intel, all the P4's have faster clocks than AMD's chips (i know clocks not the same as performance, but it's awefully hard sometimes to explain to that non nerd type people)
Works great when you look at it from that perspective. Step back and note that when consumers get things free, corporate profits go down. When corporate profits go down, people get laid off. When people get laid off, they don't spend as much. When they don't spend as much, corporate profits go down. When corporate profits go down, people get laid off... Vicious circle that we've been living in the past year and a half... I'd kinda like to see it stop, i don't know about you...
But the point is that you _don't_ need that for music. "CD quality" really is the upper bound on what people need from audio for music. They just don't care about having more than 2 channels. (Remember quadrophonic audio?) The vast majority of people don't even care about better-than-stereo audio for movies.
And the point is, there's a world market for maybe 5 computers. One day they'll weigh less than a ton. 640k ought to be enought for anybody. Etc, etc, etc.
MP3 is great for most consmers, except you need a computer to listen to them. CDs are great for the rest. But neither really qualifies in the professional spectrum, and like everything else, things trickle down from the highend to the consumer.
Just because somethings acceptable today, don't make any long term assumptions based on that, i guess that's my point.
No it isn't, you are just being sensationalistic. I think 3D is just now starting to get to the point where its really good. The playstation's graphics sucked ass. N64 was bearable 3D, dreamcast and PS2 are practical, and I think that the xbox and gamecube are finally into the realm of good 3D.
Yes, that is a sensationalist opinion... Being that you can't currently render jurasica park quality animations in realtime on any computer that we know of, even at screen resolutions, and that movie's like 6 or 7 years old now, isn't it?
However, it's so easy to take exception to your statement about the quality of XBox and GameCube's graphics, being that all we've seen so far are screen snapshots and simulations of them. You've fallen for microsoft's FUD on the subject, obviously...
Wow. So linux can not only attempt to take credit for the cheapening of commercial software (free Solaris, free SCO, free Unixware, as well as all the opensource initiatives taken on by proprietary software and software companies - it can also claim to take some credit for the hardware slowdown as well?
Way to go... Linux - the destroyer of the computer sector as a means of generating revenues...
I know - troll/flaimbait - but it was just too easy to resist.
1 - They had enough of a problem competing against clone's that paid them into the hundreds of dollars in license fees per machine. Remember that period, when they almost went bankrupt? What happens when they have to compete against $500 PC's? How much will OS X have to cost in order for them to feel comforatable releasing it for x86? $400? $500?
2 - Yes, one company makes good money selling operating systems for PC's. They're also an established monoplist. Kinda hard to compete against them, it was found in court. Look at BeOS, OSX's nearest equivalent on the PC. What other OS's are there for the PC? Do all the linux distro's in the world generate as much profit as apple does selling hardware? probably not...
OS X for intel just isn't a sound strategy, no matter how you try to slant it.
They'ed have to release thier OS ahead of any available apps... Meaning it would flounder. No one's going to pay their developers to port applcations to an unreleased platform, and Apple would lose out big time by releasing OS X on intel without any apps. Look at how "successful" Be's been - releasing a cool OS with very little app support.
I don't think the original poster was talking of Unix variants that run on Power PC chips and Macintoshes... Bur rather webserving applications. Of courrse he's still wrong - there's personal web sharing (a joke, i know), mac HTTPD, WebTen, WebStar, etc... Ton's
WebTen can duke it out with the best of Linux machines, or at least it could a while back, i haven't looked into it recently. WebStars a stable and quite secure platform for serving webpages, since it's run on a Mac with no command line and no remote administration abilities...Sometimes simpler's better.
yes, but how many people in the world actually check with the better business bureau prior to making a purchase?.01%?.1%?
They're basically a useless bunch of people, attempting to keep themselves in business through collecting dues... "well, if you don't pay us our dues, we can't say that you're a member and if anyone calls asking we'll say that you refused membership"... it's almost blackmail, given their reputation...
his is mainly to discourage greedy corporations from keeping something under copyright for 20+ years since at that point it is not economically feasible and it'll be cheaper to actually innovate *cough* Disney *cough*.
Many of disneys works are still profitable after 20 years. The only reason they wouldn't be is because your new rules would force them into unprofitablility. That just isn'r right. And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project.
Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Who do you work for, yourself or an employer? At least the vast majority of working folks here aren't freelancers, we're not consultants, we work for other companies, and we own no rights to what we create at work, either. Where's the difference?
Why not let the musicians take care of themselves, and if you really care about the philosophy about which you preach, tackle the same subjects which stand to effect your paycheck. Which exist in your industry. IP exists everywhere, but the only place anyone's fighting for its' dismissal is in music. Why not software? Why not books?
Because it's not about "freedom" for the artists... it's about "freedom" as in free as in beer for the consumer. And that's just not going to fly.
How does that protect the smaller person from the bigger fish? Large companies have much more money in general than do individuals, so they could copyright their stuff beyond the pratical reach of most people, and still be able to sit on their hands waiting for other people's copyrights to expire... Which would generally be a much shorter duration than what corps could afford.
Plus who endorses this plan? Individuals? They have to pay to protect their creations when right now it's free... That'll fly. Oh, how about corporations? Nope...
Foolhardy. You're giving the power to people with money, basically... Yeah, you free access to copyrighted materials much sooner, but don't you think the cost will be passed on to you? Imagine everyone complaining as their CD costs triple year after year after year...
Well, regardless,.com's will be like 212 numbers in new york, and 800 toll-free numbers... Just sort a sign that you've been around long enough to have gotten one of those numbers/addresses. It's not much, i know, but every little bit of added credibility counts... "look, this place has been around for at least 10 years, since they stopped doling out.com's in 2005" they'll say one day...
Slashdot Mirror
First, has the information been deemed illegal to view or say? There are laws protecting us from having, say, blockbuster release information about what video's we watch, why should a website need to release information about who's reading their content? If the information's "illegal" then it should be removed, but it hardly seems right that they have the right to request who's been reading what and who's been saying what... at least on a grand scale... If there's an "illegal" post, then it should be removed and perhaps the IP of the actual poster can be handed over, but not the IP's of everyone that actually read the information as well...
I don't think there's a processor fast enough to handle video decoding via Java quite yet. It's a really strenuous task, one that every ounce of processor speed can be taken up.
Past that... What about Quicktime? The players free. The streaming server is free. The server is opensource, so it runs or can run on just about any plaform available. The player is available for Windows and Mac OS, the two dominant client OSes....
no offense but how did that comment possibly merit "interesting?"
32 bits equals roughly 4 billion. each bit past that doubles the quantity. so, a limit of 128 bits is not even feasibly reachable in many millenia to come.
get with it already... they're going after not a single person for downloading anything that they own. They're only going after people who makes stuff available to others which they have no right to distribute...
Small difference to you, big difference so far as the laws concerened. Download all you want, just don't allow any of your files to be uploaded... Of course that undermines napster completely, but that's where the problem lies in the eyes of the law.
Good point, but we still don't need dozens of distro's just because people have different installation preferences... just more flexible intallers, really.
They're all basically the same and all the codes available, there's no real reason for all the redundany's in distros. Everyone should just suck it up and work collaberatively rather than competitively and attack the target(s) (servers and eventually desktops) together in one unified strike rather than 200 little skirmish's
I loved pointcast! So did my boss and everyone else at work at the time - what was it? 1997 or so? maybe 98?... anyways, we killed our network traffic and had to abandon it. Too bad, these days with cable modems and stuff, it'd be a great product for the home office... (i doubt corporates will ever let that beast near their networks again. at least not until 1000Base-T is the norm)
Hmmmmm... maybe you're onto something? If we all (say, 100 million US citizens, just for the sake of math) ditch the networks and go with Tivo, they'ed stand to earn:
$120,000,000,000 a year... I don't think the entire entertainment industry brings (music, TV, film, sports) in that much per year, let alone TV by itself.
Somehow the math doesn't work that they can sell a little box with a hard drive in it, and charge $10 a month for the priveldge of it's use... looking at the size of their potential audience, etc... they need to completely forget the monthly fees, and just figure on a continuous upgrade cycle in sync with whatever one of those laws permits hard drive capacity to quintuple year after year....
Well do Panasonic et al charge you a monthly recurring fee for the use of their devices which you've purchased off a store's shelf? No. Why should TIVO etc be any different in that regard? Pure greed... worse than any of the networks, being that they've never charged me a single dime to watch a show...
You're missing something, though. Right now, the P4's are priced at levels where people do actually look at the performance of the chip (power users & gamers, mostly). Dropping the price put's it in line for joe consumer, and joe consumer doens't look at benchmarks, so much as he looks at price. So long as a P4 system is within a couple hundred dollars of an Athlon system, most will end up with P4's, simply because they know the name intel, all the P4's have faster clocks than AMD's chips (i know clocks not the same as performance, but it's awefully hard sometimes to explain to that non nerd type people)
Works great when you look at it from that perspective. Step back and note that when consumers get things free, corporate profits go down. When corporate profits go down, people get laid off. When people get laid off, they don't spend as much. When they don't spend as much, corporate profits go down. When corporate profits go down, people get laid off... Vicious circle that we've been living in the past year and a half... I'd kinda like to see it stop, i don't know about you...
But the point is that you _don't_ need that for music. "CD quality" really is the upper bound on what people need from audio for music. They just don't care about having more than 2 channels. (Remember quadrophonic audio?) The vast majority of people don't even care about better-than-stereo audio for movies.
And the point is, there's a world market for maybe 5 computers. One day they'll weigh less than a ton. 640k ought to be enought for anybody. Etc, etc, etc.
MP3 is great for most consmers, except you need a computer to listen to them. CDs are great for the rest. But neither really qualifies in the professional spectrum, and like everything else, things trickle down from the highend to the consumer.
Just because somethings acceptable today, don't make any long term assumptions based on that, i guess that's my point.
No it isn't, you are just being sensationalistic. I think 3D is just now starting to get to the point where its really good. The playstation's graphics sucked ass. N64 was bearable 3D, dreamcast and PS2 are practical, and I think that the xbox and gamecube are finally into the realm of good 3D.
Yes, that is a sensationalist opinion... Being that you can't currently render jurasica park quality animations in realtime on any computer that we know of, even at screen resolutions, and that movie's like 6 or 7 years old now, isn't it?
However, it's so easy to take exception to your statement about the quality of XBox and GameCube's graphics, being that all we've seen so far are screen snapshots and simulations of them. You've fallen for microsoft's FUD on the subject, obviously...
Wow. So linux can not only attempt to take credit for the cheapening of commercial software (free Solaris, free SCO, free Unixware, as well as all the opensource initiatives taken on by proprietary software and software companies - it can also claim to take some credit for the hardware slowdown as well?
Way to go... Linux - the destroyer of the computer sector as a means of generating revenues...
I know - troll/flaimbait - but it was just too easy to resist.
With OS 8 - Apple finally managed to untangle the OS from the ROM's in all shipping macs at that time. I don't think they want to go back to that.
1 - They had enough of a problem competing against clone's that paid them into the hundreds of dollars in license fees per machine. Remember that period, when they almost went bankrupt? What happens when they have to compete against $500 PC's? How much will OS X have to cost in order for them to feel comforatable releasing it for x86? $400? $500?
2 - Yes, one company makes good money selling operating systems for PC's. They're also an established monoplist. Kinda hard to compete against them, it was found in court. Look at BeOS, OSX's nearest equivalent on the PC. What other OS's are there for the PC? Do all the linux distro's in the world generate as much profit as apple does selling hardware? probably not...
OS X for intel just isn't a sound strategy, no matter how you try to slant it.
They'ed have to release thier OS ahead of any available apps... Meaning it would flounder. No one's going to pay their developers to port applcations to an unreleased platform, and Apple would lose out big time by releasing OS X on intel without any apps. Look at how "successful" Be's been - releasing a cool OS with very little app support.
I don't think the original poster was talking of Unix variants that run on Power PC chips and Macintoshes... Bur rather webserving applications. Of courrse he's still wrong - there's personal web sharing (a joke, i know), mac HTTPD, WebTen, WebStar, etc... Ton's
WebTen can duke it out with the best of Linux machines, or at least it could a while back, i haven't looked into it recently. WebStars a stable and quite secure platform for serving webpages, since it's run on a Mac with no command line and no remote administration abilities...Sometimes simpler's better.
yes, but how many people in the world actually check with the better business bureau prior to making a purchase? .01%? .1%?
They're basically a useless bunch of people, attempting to keep themselves in business through collecting dues... "well, if you don't pay us our dues, we can't say that you're a member and if anyone calls asking we'll say that you refused membership"... it's almost blackmail, given their reputation...
his is mainly to discourage greedy corporations from keeping something under copyright for 20+ years since at that point it is not economically feasible and it'll be cheaper to actually innovate *cough* Disney *cough*.
Many of disneys works are still profitable after 20 years. The only reason they wouldn't be is because your new rules would force them into unprofitablility. That just isn'r right. And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project.
Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Who do you work for, yourself or an employer? At least the vast majority of working folks here aren't freelancers, we're not consultants, we work for other companies, and we own no rights to what we create at work, either. Where's the difference?
Why not let the musicians take care of themselves, and if you really care about the philosophy about which you preach, tackle the same subjects which stand to effect your paycheck. Which exist in your industry. IP exists everywhere, but the only place anyone's fighting for its' dismissal is in music. Why not software? Why not books?
Because it's not about "freedom" for the artists... it's about "freedom" as in free as in beer for the consumer. And that's just not going to fly.
How does that protect the smaller person from the bigger fish? Large companies have much more money in general than do individuals, so they could copyright their stuff beyond the pratical reach of most people, and still be able to sit on their hands waiting for other people's copyrights to expire... Which would generally be a much shorter duration than what corps could afford.
Plus who endorses this plan? Individuals? They have to pay to protect their creations when right now it's free... That'll fly. Oh, how about corporations? Nope...
Foolhardy. You're giving the power to people with money, basically... Yeah, you free access to copyrighted materials much sooner, but don't you think the cost will be passed on to you? Imagine everyone complaining as their CD costs triple year after year after year...
And I bet companies like Network Solutions will still be charging $70 per year.
Quite some time ago, you'd realize that Verisign bought Network Solutions. They're one and the same...
Well, regardless, .com's will be like 212 numbers in new york, and 800 toll-free numbers... Just sort a sign that you've been around long enough to have gotten one of those numbers/addresses. It's not much, i know, but every little bit of added credibility counts... "look, this place has been around for at least 10 years, since they stopped doling out .com's in 2005" they'll say one day...
OFFTOPIC: Why even bother putting your email address up if everyone has to take so many steps in order to contact you?
in 12 monkeys, a virus wiped out over 5 billion people. That's gotta count for something.